2018 (4) TMI 1013 - AT - Central Excise

Clearance to 100% EOU - demand of AED (Surcharge) and Education Cess - clearance of waste under N/N. 22/2003-CE dated 31.03.2003 - time limitation - Held that - appellants had cleared the goods to EOU with full knowledge of the department and they have intimated the facts of such clearances also - in a situation which involved clearance of goods to EOU under CT-3 Certificates, Hon ble Supreme Court, in the Blue Star Ltd., 2015 (3) TMI 628 - SUPREME COURT , has upheld the Tribunal s view that the demand hit by limitation - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Disputed exemption claims under Notification No. 22/2003-CE
- Failure to discharge AED (Surcharge) and Education Cess
- Appeal based on limitation grounds
- Interpretation of relevant case laws

Analysis:

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai involved two appeals concerning the clearance of Tea and Tea wastes to 100% EOU under Notification No. 22/2003-CE. The appellants claimed exemption of BED, AED (GSI), and AED (T & TA), but the Department contended that they failed to discharge AED (Surcharge) and Education Cess obligations. The adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demands, leading to the appeals before the Tribunal.

During the hearing, the appellants' counsel highlighted a previous Tribunal decision in a similar case, where the appeals were allowed on limitation grounds. Drawing parallels between the cases, the counsel referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in CCE, Mumbai Vs. Blue Star Ltd. The Department's representative, on the other hand, supported the impugned order and cited a judgment by the Gujarat High Court to counter the limitation argument.

After considering both sides and examining the facts, the Tribunal noted the previous decision in the Harisons Malayalam Ltd. case and the Supreme Court's stance in the Blue Star Ltd. judgment. Following these precedents, the Tribunal allowed the appeals solely on the ground of limitation without delving into the merits of the matter, as the demand was deemed hit by limitation in a situation involving clearance of goods to EOU under CT-3 Certificates.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed both appeals based on the limitation aspect, aligning with its earlier decisions and the Supreme Court's position, thereby resolving the disputed exemption claims under Notification No. 22/2003-CE in favor of the appellants.